If I were an Atheist

[Esquilax]

There are many popular beliefs which in light of strong evidence to the contrary slowly in some cases die out.

And we happen to be in the slow dying out of theism. Why assume that this time it's just not happening?

I know many think of atheism as not a belief in anything but a disbelief only but that is rather a shallow view point.

Yeah, sorry, but I don't base my beliefs around what Drew approves of. The way atheists define their beliefs is not down to the opinions of some random theist. We know you think it's shallow, but the fact is that your reasons for thinking that are more due to strategic concerns and your own desire for certainty than anything real or substantive. You think it's shallow because you want atheists to be making a positive claim for burden of proof reasons. You want us to be employing the same certainty you do.

But "It would be really convenient for me if you guys started believing something rhetorically weaker so I can argue against it," is not a good reason for us to entirely change what we believe. This is an entirely self serving argument you have here.

To be intellectually honest if atheism is true that no God exists then we owe the existence of the universe, life and mind to mechanistic forces that never intended such to occur including their own existence but it all came together unplanned through sheer happenstance.

Not necessarily. I see you're still swinging wildly to the contra-positive whenever anyone dares disagree with you, there. It's still a dishonest position; disagreeing with you does not entail belief in the exact opposite position.

If belief in God were as absurd as belief in Santa Claus you wouldn't have to make a case, it would collapse upon its own weight. You don't know of any Santa debate forums do you?

Again, the Santa question isn't reinforced as strictly as the god question is. Come back and talk to me when parents command their children to believe in Santa- generation over generation!- on pain of hell, and in some cases kick them out of the house when they fail to do so. But repeating the same false equivalency a second time doesn't suddenly make it a true equivalency.

Its an uphill battle in part because its leaves the mystery of our existence and that of the universe in as much of a lurch as ever.

I agree, and you are a prime example of why that is: your discomfort with not knowing, your desperation to even have a wrong answer, so long as you have an answer, and your unwillingness to admit that you don't know, even when that's the honest position, causes your resistance to atheism. But your ego isn't an argument against atheism, it's simply an indicator of the human character flaws that we all have, and that some of us are unable to surmount.

Secondly what evidence is there that mechanistic forces could bootstrap themselves into existence and then minus plan, intent or engineering degree could cause exacting laws of nature to produce stars, galaxies, solar systems, planets and ultimately produce something utterly unlike itself, life and mind. Most atheists will shrug and say we don't know how we got here or why that happened we just hold the notion it was a Creator in disdain and contempt. That is why its a non-starter and non-seller.

So you're saying that if we don't know something, it's impossible for us to determine the probability of putative answers? We don't know what is, so we're incapable of determining what isn't?

Perhaps you don't have a teenager but I can assure they test and often rebel against everything a parent says.

Which is why you get them when they're kids and lack the critical thinking skills to resist. And why you keep refreshing that training every week at church. And every day with prayer. And keep them insulated from outside perspectives by calling them evil.

I have met some atheist parents who were mortified there off spring became theists. Where did they go wrong?

I wasn't aware that anecdotes were data.

Do you think parents could persuade children to continue believing in Santa Claus?

If I had access to the same support system your god has, I absolutely could. I'd need to completely discard my scruples, but I could do it.

If you lack belief God exists and are justified in that lack of belief then why wouldn't you also have (just as an opinion) the belief God doesn't exist?

Because the former leaves me open to additional evidence changing my mind. I don't have any particular reason to outright deny, I just need more evidence than you're giving me to accept.

Over all its a losing strategy because as a theist I don't deny God exists but as a weak atheist you don't deny God exists either. We can't even debate the existence of God because you don't deny God exists.

Sure we can. You believe something I don't, and I don't think you've made any kind of case for it. What more do you need?

If the case in favor or atheism is so weak, so tepid that you can't even bring yourself to opine God doesn't exist how weak is that?

Again, expressions of certainty are not indicators of the quality of an argument. Why aren't you even addressing this point?

By the same token, evidently there is a severe lack of evidence in the non-existence of God so you won't render the opinion God doesn't exist.

So, now you're conflating "no evidence for a proposition," with "all evidence against that proposition"? You know there's three states to that scenario, right? There could be no positive evidence and no contradictory evidence, like when, say, we don't have enough information to properly formulate a response.

You're not only an a-theist you are an a-atheist as well. And its not that you reject the idea God doesn't exist...you just lack the belief God doesn't exist. See what I mean? That an absurd position (IMHO).

Sure, if I indulged your inane false dichotomy, it would be ridiculous.

I've debated this issue for a long time.

That's not an answer to what I asked.

I don't get to dictate, I do get to voice my opinion. That's what a discussion board is for no?

But the meat of your argument seems to be the strawman about what we should believe, rather than any evidence for your position. That's the problem.

Then your implying that parents actually know that God doesn't exist also but continue with the charade anyway.

No, not at all. It's a difference in how the belief is responded to, not the motive of the responder.

Is there enough evidence for you to render the opinion Santa doesn't exist or do you also just lack that belief due to lack of evidence of Santa's existence but maintain that Santa may in fact exist.

That depends, are we talking about Santa as people actually talk about him, or Santa as a direct comparison with god? Because in the former case, Santa doesn't exist. But if we're still using Santa as an analogy to god, then to make it an apt analogy then we'd also need millions of people willing to redefine what Santa is via theology over and over, to keep him beyond the reach of human inquiry and discovery. In that case, when people behave to Santa-questioning like they do god questioning, no, I couldn't say Santa doesn't exist, because it's impossible to disprove a moving goal post.

Do you believe that if parents didn't drop the Santa charade children would grow up into adults and continue to believe in Santa?

Yep. At least, many of them would.